Tuesday, December 26, 2090

Ward Churchill Book Review

href="http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0006632.html">

Book Review by A. Clare Brandabur

A Little Matter of Genocide:
Holocaust and Denial in the Americas-1492 to the Present.

by Ward Churchill (San Francisco: City Lights Books. 1997.)


A few years ago I was given a copy of Richard Drinnon’s Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building (1980), a volume of American history in which the author documents the successive genocides committed by white settlers against darker-skinned peoples from the extermination of the Pequods through the Viet Nam War. This frank approach was a refreshing change from the dominant-discourse view of these events as a series of heroic ‘frontiers’. Only one problem: it seemed that Drinnon’s courageous version of American history required, as a final chapter, an account of the genocide against the Palestinians now being carried out by those US surrogates the Israelis. When I called the editor who had entrusted the book to me and made this caveat, he said quietly, ‘I know. I called Drinnon and told him the same thing. He agreed with me. But he said if he had written that chapter, the book would not have been published.’

Although Ward Churchill has not written fully on the genocide against the Palestinians, he does place it within the global context of the present book, A Little Matter of Genocide, a book which leapt out at me from a display of books by and about native Americans in City Lights Book Store. The author is an enrolled Keetoowah Cherokee and Professor of American Indian Studies in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and has been a leader of the Colorado Chapter of the American Indian Movement since 1972. The title of the book is taken from a statement by Russell Means, founder of the American Indian Movement, who spoke of ‘a little matter of genocide right here at home,’ by which he meant the ongoing genocide against the American Indians which is still in progress.

In this week in which the UN marked the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Polish-American jurist Raphael Lemkin, it is fitting to notice that Churchill’s book is dedicated to this remarkable man. Lemkin’s comprehensive definition of genocide, ultimately incorporated into the UN Resolution on Genocide, had been rejected (in part at least, Churchill believes, because he was Jewish and spoke with a foreign accent) by Democrat and Republican members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in their deliberations in 1948. The purpose of the book is to achieve an understanding of genocide which will enable the global community to call past genocides by their right name, to stop genocides now in progress, and to prevent future genocides. Starting from the facts of the genocide against his own people, Churchill relates the history of genocide and the struggle to articulate a definition of the term sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to prevent the watering down of the concept, and to cut through the misleading rhetoric which now obfuscates debate thereby permitting this and other genocides to continue. Churchill gives shocking statistics:

During the four centuries spanning the time between 1492, when Christopher Columbus first set foot on the ‘New World’ of a Caribbean beach and 1892, when the US Census Bureau concluded that there were fewer than a quarter-million indigenous people surviving within the country’s boundaries, a hemispheric population estimated to have been as great as 125 million was reduced by something over 90 percent. The people had died in their millions of being hacked apart with axes and swords, buried alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases. (p.  1)

Later in the book he gives a staggering estimate of the total who were ‘ethnically cleansed’: ‘All told, it is probable that more than one hundred million native people were ‘eliminated’ in the course of Europe’s ongoing ‘civilization’ of the western hemisphere.’(p. 86) (Emphasis added)

Yet this ghastly history is denied, suppressed, minimized or even celebrated by deniers of what Ward Churchill calls the American holocaust. The director of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne Cheney, in collaboration with the US Senate, during preparations for the 1992 celebration of Columbus Day, refused to fund any film production which proposed to use the word ‘genocide’ to explain the liquidation of Native Americans. Charles Krauthamer used one of his Time Magazine columns (May 27, 1991) to claim that the extermination of Native Americans was entirely justified because it wiped out ‘barbarisms’ like the Inca community (notwithstanding that pre-Columbian Inca art has been compared favorably with the achievements of classical Greece, e.g. by Malcolm Billings in a recent BBC Heritage episode on central America). Arthur Schlesinger, Churchill continues, is prarphrased by David Stannard as asserting that without the European conquests and slaughter, at least some New World societies would today be sufficiently unpleasant places to live so as to make acceptable the centuries of genocide that were carried out against the native peoples of the entire Western Hemisphere. (p. 4)

From denials of the American holocaust, Churchill moves to a consideration of the Nazi program against Poles, Jews, Gypsies, Slovenes and Serbs: ‘Between 1938 and 1945, Poland, the first Slavic nation to fall to the Germans, suffered 6,028,000 nonmilitary deaths, about 22 percent population reduction. (Three million of the Polish dead were Jews, and another 200,000 or so Gypsies, so the Slavic reduction would come to about 14 percent.) Virtually every member of the Polish intelligentsia was murdered.’ (pp. 47-49) More horrendous statistics follow: the USSR suffered terrible losses: by May 10, 1943, the Germans had taken 5,405,616 Soviet military prisoners; of these, around 3.5 million were starved, frozen, shot, gassed, hanged, killed by unchecked epidemics, or simply worked to death. The pre-war population of the Ukraine, Churchill says, was reduced, by the time the Germans were finally driven out in 1944, by about 14.5 million, of these at least 7 million were dead. The Soviet Union lost a minimum of 11 million civilians to Nazi extermination measures, perhaps as many as 15 million, plus another 3.5 million exterminated as prisoners of war, in addition to perhaps a million troops executed by Wehrmacht and Waffen SS units rather than being taken prisoner. (p. 48)

In spite of the overwhelming documentation for mass extermination in the American holocaust and the obvious inclusion of Slavs, Gypsies, Ukrainians and others besides Jews in the German extermination program, there are still those who deny that the term ‘genocide’ applies to Native Americans, and they are the same in some instances, Churchill observes, as those who deny that the term ‘genocide’ can be applied to any group other than the European Jews. At the center of this verbals storm is Zionism. Churchill says:

But preposterous as some of the argumentation has become, all of it is outstripped by a substantial component of zionism which contends not only that the American holocaust never happened, but that no ‘true’ genocide has ever occurred, other than the Holocaust suffered by the Jews at the hands of the nazis during the first half of the 1940s.’ (p. 7) (Emphasis added)

Of course this discourse has been joined since Churchill’s book by such impressive voices as that of Ronald Finkelstein who castigates those who exploit Jewish death and suffering for personal gain. Here, in what is perhaps the most subtle part of A Little Matter of Genocide, the author provides a closely reasoned discussion in which he shows that there is a close relationship between those who deny the historicity of genocide against the Jews under Hitler’s Germany (a fact of history which Churchill, like Edward Said, regards as established) and those who claim that the German murder of Jews was and remains the only holocaust to which the term applies: those two positions are two sides to the same coin in Churchill’s view. Both positions falsify the whole subject and render objective discussion impossible.

Reviewing the public statements of ‘deniers’ and ‘exclusivists,’ Churchill asks what motive lies behind these patently false positions. The exclusivists, he says, have an agenda of establishing a ‘truth’ which serves to compel permanent maintenance of the privileged political status of Israel, ‘the Jewish state established on Arab land in 1947 as an act of international atonement for the Holocaust . . . and to construct a conceptual screen behind which to hide the realities of Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population whose rights and property were usurped in its very creation.’ (p. 74)(Enphasis added)

But why, Churchill asks, do intellectuals and public figures in the rest of the world buy into such a ‘thoroughly dishonest enterprise?’ He analyzes the confluence of interests which he believes explains at least some of this collusion: by seeming to accept ‘exclusivism’, i.e. by seeming to believe that only the Jewish people have ever been the victims of genocide, these other interests gain automatic exemption from coming to terms with various skeletons in their own closets.

This dominant discourse dictates, for example, that Turkey and Israel have an unholy alliance: if Turkey piously agrees that only the Jewish people have suffered true genocide, in return Israel will look the other way from what precisely happened to the Armenians in 1915, and from what is happening to the Kurds today. The US can entertain itself with annual Hollywood blockbusters dramatizing the Diary of Anne Frank, Shoah, Shtetl, Yentl, etc., while carrying on with the nuclear pollution of Native American lands and the impoverishment and deracination of the Indian peoples, meanwhile avoiding the genocidal aspects of its Korean and Viet Nam adventures. Germany can piously atone for its Hitlerian past, paying reparations to Jewish Holocaust survivors while continuing its active persecution and ghettoization of its Gypsy population without the unpleasant admission that the Gypsies too are Holocaust survivors.

Churchill also throws light on the Revolution of British colonies against England in 1776 and on the Cold War as he pursues the subject of genocide. He points out that the colonists opposed England in the years leading up the the American Revolution, not just over the issue of taxation without representation, as we have been taught, but also over the seizure of more and more Native American land. While the Mother Country, engaged in conflicts in Euroope, was trying to cut its losses and sign peace treaties with local Indian tribes putting an end to continued territorial expansion, the settlers wished to continue to expand into ‘free land’ just like the Jewish/American settlers greedy for ‘free land’ in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and Gaza today. Blackmailed by its Zionist lobbies (of both Fundamentalist Christians and Jews) and unwilling to submit to a world-wide structure designed to settle international conflicts in non-vilent ways, the US resorts to military muscle to impose its own agenda for Israeli colonial expansion. Thus the United States seeks to impose a ‘world order’ through the same kind of unassailable military force that Hitler desired earlier for Germany. Contrary to what now passes for ‘responsible’ analysis in US scholarship, Churchill concludes that the Cold War was the outcome of this bellicosity, as Noam Chomsky has argued. (pp. 370-77)

In the final chapter, Churchill offers an amended Genocide Convention which refines and elaborates that pioneered by Raphael Lemkin who had left Poland in 1939 (his family was to perish in the Holocaust), and was working out of Yale and Duke Universities in the US. Lemkin developed a complex description of genocide in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government Proposals for Redress (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: 1944) Unlike many of the narrower definitions which restrict the idea of genocide to the physical annihilation of an entire group, Lemkin’s concept of genocide included any ‘coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.’ This idea of genocide included attacks on political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group. Even non-lethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity and personal security of members of a group constituted genocide, if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group, Churchill explains. (pp. 407-8) To readers familiar with the actualities of Israeli occupation in Palestine and other post-colonial conflicts worldwide, this definition will resonate with significance.

Churchill presents this definition under the title: Proposed Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, 1997, in the format used for legal instruments in the United Nations, in the hope that it may serve as the basis for serious discussion of this crime which stands like a dark shadow at the heart of human history and without an understanding of which the human race may be unable to achieve a peaceful and stable future.

The book contains an extensive bibliography; the index should be revised in future editions to be more inclusive. For example, only four citations are listed for Chomsky, whereas I have counted at least nine others in the text.

Sunday, August 26, 2029

Book Review
Columbus and Other Cannibals The Wétiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, And Terrorism Jack D. Forbes – Seven Stories Press 234 pp – $14.95 “I will argue that we can compare the commemoration of Columbus with the doings of the neo-Nazis organizations in Europe and the Americas, groups which commemorate the great dates of Hitler’s regime. The difference is that the neo-Nazis are a minority and their commemorations usually do not receive much attention. The followers of Columbus, on the other hand, occupy seats of power throughout much of the Americas. Their holidays are national ones, often imposed on their respective societies.” — Jack D. Forbes Columbus and other cannibalsChristopher Columbus is an enigma in America. For many Americans, Columbus is viewed with romanticism of a heroic explorer who “sailed the ocean blue.” He is part of the American construction by an educational system that creates heroes of legendary proportion that are perpetrated from generation to generation. Not all groups romanticize Columbus. To American Indians, Columbus is likened to a criminal who came to shores of the Western Hemisphere to pilfer and commit hideous crimes against indigenous women. “Columbus and Other Cannibals: The Wétiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, And Terrorism” is a powerful book that dethrones the enigmatic Columbus and puts into perspective colonization of the Americas. Written by Jack D. Forbes, the former chair of Native American Studies at the University of California at Davis, the book pushes the envelope way beyond what American students are traditionally taught about Columbus in school. According to Forbes, cannibalism is a disease. He refers it as the “wétiko”, cannibal, psychosis. He writes of this form of cannibalism on the Americas brought by Columbus and crew: “Brutality knows no boundaries, Greed knows no limits. Perversion knows no borders. Arrogance knows no frontiers. Deceit knows no edges.” Jack Forbes Jack Forbes Forbes, Powhatan-Renápe and Delaware-Lanápe descent, passed away in February 2011. Forbes authored twelve books, including “Apache, Navaho and Spaniard,” that has been in print for over thirty-two years. In “Columbus and Other Cannibals,” Forbes will challenge those who have been brought up in an American society that has chosen to whitewash, no pun intended, all of the atrocities done to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. What is fascinating is Forbes does so without the tone of anger that is typical in those who seek to provoke thought to a different level. Forbes seeks to provoke thought, but writes as a philosopher who understands the context of who he is. First published in 1978, “Columbus and Other Cannibals” was revised and rereleased in 2008. The latest edition provides interesting perspective that include contemporary worldviews that are inclusive of George W. Bush’s war on terror. And, on the word terrorism, which Forbes argues was part of Indian Removal from their lands during the 1800s. So, while Forbes writes about Columbus, he argues the premise of Columbus’ cannibalism has extended to future, and including this, generation of Americans. “Columbus and Other Cannibals” should be read by those who want to better understand America and why it behaves as it does today. American Indian students will benefit from this book as they prepare to educate future generations of American Indians the “why” behind what happened to our ancestors.

Saturday, December 26, 2020

Genocide Videos









============================================================== ======================================================================================

Sunday, April 19, 2015


Forgotten History – Concealed Facts

HISTORY No Longer Taught in Public Schools – The  truth of the  Cover-Up

 PRELUDE
 This article came from an Encyclopedia of American History, used to teach school kids until 1955, published by Harper and Row.

 The Book was a school text book and The Consultant Editors were the who’s Who of History Professors and then was edited by Richard B. Morris, Professor of History of Columbia University. This book cannot be found anywhere, because the Publishers were bought out by the Black Pope’s operatives in this country, so it was eliminated.

[boxcarro, the Arthur Of This Here Blog, also found this here RARE & SUPRESSED Book, First Edition, at AbeBooks.com, First Edition, 1953, Lib. Of Congress # 53-5384, I purchase it about years ago, for $1.00 + S&h.]




 It is 840 pages of a wealth of information. It shows the man who really discovered America. It shows all the land was called the Virginia land company, in dispute with the two corporations; the East India company and the Hudson Bay company. All three companies were owned by British business corporations. Remember; the American did not know, at the time, that the Vatican owned and controlled these British corporations, and their subjects, since the 1214 Treaty the King had with the Vatican’s Pope.
 However, to hide this fact, the King was allowed to be the front for the Vatican (so as to hide this fact), as the modern Mafia has corporations front for them to hide from the FBI and other agencies. So, with that background, we shall see just how far down the slippery slopes of the Corporations of the States and United States are allowed to stifle education, so much so, that people have no clue who they really are and no clue who controls them. I will not make any comment, as it is all from the history books. You present day people, under 58, never have seen books in schools like this. IF I DO MAKE COMMENTS, it will be in all CAPS with [[[brackets around them]]]. The bolds are from the book itself and is not by chapters, but by the era of the time periods and you are referred to other pages of the book. So one is constantly going back and forth in the book.

 This sets the stage for the states to operate as they do today. Basically, it is to show you all states were and are corporations and not a government created by the common man and women as taught you today. That is one Myth I talk about in the MYTH and The Reality book. The reason this book was eliminated from Grade 8 to grade 12, was to keep the young child’s impressionable mind closed, so no reasoning powers could develop to ask questions. Basically, this is why kids graduating from schools today can read, but they have no comprehension of the words they read.
As my kids grew up in the 60′s and 70′s they did not have this teaching book as I had. In conversing with the Newspaper Guild in Washington, D.C., in 1993, I asked, “What are all the newspapers printed at?” They said a stunning fifth-grade level. I asked why? They stated that to write any higher-grade level would turn away advertisers, because the people could not understand a word above a fifth-grade level. I asked, “All papers?” They said no, the two papers written at a ninth-grade level are the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
 Now, I understand it is down to a fourth-grade level. If you ever wondered why so many adults are NOT smarter than a fifth grader, it should be evident. But in all fairness to some people: The woman across the road home schools her kids. They are very smart and read some of my books and can understand them, while many a person fighting the agencies of the corporations cannot comprehend what a 15-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl can. They, the adults, were corporation-schooled to dumb them down as said by many men and women of 55 and older. When I was in high school reading this very book, I was not educated as to who owned the United States, if all were corporations. And neither mom nor dad could explain. I was told that the Constitution was created to protect the people and was written by the people. So at the age of 16, what is a young man’s and a young girl’s thoughts on? Surely not who runs the corporations.
 So, the Myth that the owner of all the States and United States was never revealed to me until I reached the age of 43. I pulled out the history book, part of which you will read, then it all started to make sense and why no one could tell me who owned the corporation called “State of So and So” and the corporation called “The United States.” The book was pulled the year after I left high school in 1954. I graduated 52 out of a class of 170, so I was not an exceptionally smart student.












After reading again what I missed in ’47 to ’54, I got real smart and I hope everyone reading this will remember that everything called government is nothing but a private corporation out to make as much profit as it can at your expense. That’s what corporations do to stay alive.

 Chapter 1
This starts in the book 16 pages in, with the heading “Columbus and Subsequent Exploration”. It is from 1451 and ends 1635. I NOW QUOTE THE BOOK:
 1497, 2 May-6 August 1st Cabot Voyage. Cabot born in Italy, real name Caboto, migrated to England 1484-90, where he lived in Bristol as a merchant. Henry VII issued in 1497 to the Cabots, John and his three sons, a Patent to discover for England regions to the east, west and north (avoiding Portuguese claims). In return for a trade monopoly and custom exemptions, the Cabots were to turn over to the crown 20% of all trading profits. They left England May, 1497 with a crew and prominent merchants. He sighted land June 24th, took possession of Newfoundland for Henry VII and sailed to Maine. It appears that Cabot’s company explored the coast of North America as far south as Delaware or Chesapeake Bay. [[[THIS WAS ALSO CLAIMED FOR HENRY VII.]]]
 1576 to 1606 English search for North west passage. Martin Frobisher sailed from England (June 1576) and pressed northwest after sighting Greenland until he reached Baffin Island and entered Frobisher Bay, believing it to be a straight between America and Asia. [[[NOTE THEY CALLED THE COUNTRY, AMERICA.]]] To exploit his discovery, the Company of Cathay was organized both for mining operations, which he conducted in Baffin Land. He returned to Bristol with 200 tons of ore. Now it tells much more than this; George Weymouth, backed by the East India Company, had to turn back because of mutiny. John Knight, sponsored by both the East India company and Muscovy Cos., explored the shores of newfound land and LABRADOR. [[[AS YOU CAN READ, ALL THIS WAS DONE BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OF ENGLAND, GIVEN PATENTS BY HENRY VII, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE ALL CONTROLLED BY THE VATICAN AFTER THE APRIL 14, 1214 TREATY WAS SIGNED BY THE POPE AND KING JOHN. THIS CAN BE FOUND IN MANY OF THE INFORMER'S BOOKS, JAMES MONTGOMERY'S RESEARCH AND IN NUMEROUS OTHER BOOKS OF HISTORY, INCLUDING THE PAPAL BULLS OF THE VATICAN.]]]




Chapter 2
 The founding of the English Colonies 1578- 1734
 1578-83 Virginia; Sir Humphrey Gilbert, obtained a patent June 11 from Queen Elizabeth for the discovery and colonization in northwest America. But his plan to establish a colony as a base against Spain had to await financial support.
 1584-1602 Raleigh’s Colony; Sir Walter Raleigh, a half-brother of Gilbert and a member of his last expedition, was granted a virtual renewal of the Gilbert patent Raleigh, explored and called his find Virginia.
 1605-1606 George Weymouth sailed under the auspices of the Earl of Southampton and the latter’s Roman Catholic son-in-law, Sir Thomas Arundel, ostensibly to establish a colony for Catholics who found their position in England insecure.
 The account of Guy Fawkes arrest (Nov. 4, 1605) narrated in James Rosier’s Relation, prompted two interrelated groups of merchants, from London and Plymouth, to petition the Crown [[[THE CROWN IS NOT THE KING, BUT THE CROWN BANK RULING THE KING AND QUEENS, FOR AN EXPLANATION ONE HAS TO READ THE BOOK, "THE MYTH AND THE REALITY—JUST WHO OWNS THE UNITED STATES" AND JAMES MONTGOMERY'S ARTICLES.]]] for a patent. Under its TERMS two Virginia Companies — the London (or South Virginia) Company and the Plymouth (or North Virginia) Company were established. The former was authorized to settle in a region between 34 degrees N and 41 degrees N (present NY City); the latter 45 degrees N and 38 degrees N (present Washington, DC). [[[YOU SEE THAT THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY DID NOT MEAN PRESENT VIRGINIA. IT MEANT FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA AND AS FAR WEST AS THE PA - OHIO BORDER. THIS HISTORY BOOK SHOWS THIS ON THE MAPS. CORPORATIONS RAN THE PLANTATIONS, JUST AS THEY DO NOW.]]]
 1619-24 Final period of company control; The harsh legal code was repealed. A general assembly, comprising 22 burgesses (2 chosen by the planters from each town, hundred, or plantation.) [[[ THE DEFINITION OF PLANTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FARMING. THE DEFINITION IS GIVEN IN BURKES Conciliation with the Colonies TO WIT;]]] “PLANTATIONS = colonies: the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in acts and charters and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.” page 81 note 12. [[[ERGO, WE HAVE BUSINESS PEOPLE NOW RUNNING THE COMPANY THAT ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES, NOT THE HUGE COMPANIES IN ENGLAND.]]]
 1624-42 Sir Francis Wyatt, who had been company governor, was appointed governor by James I. He, in turn, was suspended by George Yeardly mar (1626) [and] his successor, Francis West, was instructed to call the general assembly. Sir Francis Wyatt was instructed to convene the burgesses, “once a year or oftener”. [[[WHY DID WYATT APPEAR AFTER BEING SUSPENDED? WHO ARE THE MERCHANTS, CALLED BURGESSES? DOES IT REMIND YOU OF THE SAME CORPORATE POLICIES OF TODAY? DEFINITION OF BURGESSES 1828 WEBSTER'S (4) BEFORE THE REVOLUTION, THE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE POPULAR BRANCH OF THE LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA, WERE CALLED BURGESSES, AS [IN] THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES. IT IS NOW CALLED THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. SO, YOU HAVE THE MERCHANTS OF SMALL CORPORATIONS, THE POPULAR BRANCH, RUNNING THE OLD CORPORATION DESIGNED BY THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY, BUT NOT CALLED THE VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY. WHERE IS THE COMMON MAN AND WOMEN IN THIS TIME PERIOD, LIKE YOU AND ME?]]]
 1642-52 Wyatt’s successor,Sir William Berkeley, introduced a number of reforms, including the abolition of the poll tax. An Indian uprising by Opechancanough was suppressed. The Indians ceded all lands between the York and the James, from the falls of Kecoughton, but retained the territory north of the York. On Jan. 30, 1649, Virginia [[[THE LAND COMPANY, NOT THE VIRGINIA OF TODAY.]]] announced its allegiance to the Stuart House, after the execution of Charles I, and gave refuge to prominent cavaliers. In retaliation, Parliament passed an Act (Oct. 1650) imposing a blockade on Virginia and subsequently dispatched two armed vessels with commissioners who received the submission of Berkeley and the council (1652), upon liberal terms. Following a new election, the burgesses chose as Governor Richard Bennett, one of the Parliamentary commissioners. Samuel Matthews, threatened to dissolve the burgesses(1658). With the death of Matthews the burgesses asserted “supreme power”, until lawful authority might be forth coming from England, and elected the Royalist, Berkeley, Governor (1660). [[[SO FAR, ALL THAT IS RUNNING THE LAND COMPANY, ARE CORPORATE EXECS OF NOBILITY; NO COMMON MAN IS ALLOWED IN THIS PRIVATE CLUB, THAT ALL COLONIES ARE IN SUBMISSION AND THE MEN AND WOMEN ARE RULED BY CORPORATE DICTATES.]]]
 CHAPTER 3
Settlement of New England [[[THIS PART IS EXCEPTIONALLY LONG, SO I WILL GIVE THE HIGHLIGHTS, ONLY, AS TO THE CORPORATE NATURE OF EVERY COLONY IN NEW ENGLAND.]]] QUOTE:
 Plymouth
 1606-20 Early Activities of Plymouth company.
 1624-26 Massachusetts Bay. Dorchestor company.
 1628 The New England company.
1629 The Cambridge Agreement. The position of the Puritans was becoming increasingly insecure after the dissolution of Parliament (1629) and the growing influence of William Laud (Bishop of London), a zealous defender of conformity. Twelve Puritan members of the Massachusetts Bay company signed the Cambridge Agreement, whereby they undertook to emigrate to America, provided the charter and government were transferred thither. The company ratified the agreement (1629)
 1630-34 Civil government was rapidly established. [[[WHERE IS THE COMMON MAN IN ALL THIS? ALL THERE ARE, ARE CORPORATIONS; SOME PRIVATE, SOME OF THE KING. THE SO CALLED “ CIVIL GOVERNMENT” IS NOTHING BUT A GOVERNMENT OF CORPORATIONS IN THE CIVIL NATURE OF THE LAW MERCHANT, GOING BACK TO HAMMURABBI IN THE 1600 BC ERA THAT RULES ALL CORPORATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.]]]
 1635 Banishment of Roger Williams—Williams arrived in New England (1631), served in the Salem and Plymouth churches and became pastor of the former (early 1635). He attacked the validity of the charter, questioned the right of the civil [[[CORPORATE]]] authorities to legislate in the matters of conscience and urged the Salem church to separate from the rest.
 1635-1638. Attempts to revoke Charter – A Privy Counsel committee (“Lords Commissioners for the Plantations in General,” known as “Land Commission”) ordered the recall of the Charter on the ground it had been surreptitiously obtained and unwarranted overstepped. Georges was ordered to serve a writ of quo warranto on the Massachusetts officials, and the King’s Bench ordered the charter cancelled (1637).
 1631-60 Founding of Connecticut. The Dorchester corporation and Plymouth corporation, along with Edward Winslow of Plymouth, explored the Connecticut Valley as far north as Windsor. On July 7, 1635, a group headed by Lord Saye and Sele, who claimed rights to settle the region on the basis of patent from the Council for New England (assigned by the Earl of Warwick, 1631), authorized John Winthrop, Son of the Bay Colony’s Governor, to take control at the mouth of the Connecticut River.
 1636-56 Rhode Island settlements. Roger Williams established his colony at Seekonk (Providence), solely on the basis of an Indian deed. Roger Williams left for England (1643) to obtain a charter, which was granted him (1644). The general assembly drafted a constitutional structure establishing freedom of conscience, separating church and state, providing for town referenda on laws passed by the assembly and giving to towns, as well as the assembly, the right to initiate laws.
 1638-43 New Hampshire. John Wheelwright, established the Town of Exeter. His settlers signed the Exeter Compact (based on the Mayflower Compact). Wheelwright withdrew to Maine when Portsmouth and Dover conceded the authority to Massachusetts.
 1640-51 Maine. A provincial court was established at York. Massachusetts persisted in its expansionist aims. Despite an appeal by Maine government to Parliament (1651), The Massachusetts General Court held that Maine was legally included within the boundaries of the Bay Colony. [[[HERE IS A CORPORATION TAKING OVER A COLONY, MUCH LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY. Is there anything not new under the sun?]]]
 1641-60 Massachusetts as an Independent Commonwealth. Robert Child, and other remonstrants, attacked the Bay Colony for its civil and religious discrimination against non-Puritans and for not observing the laws of England. Winthrop and other magistrates framed a reply and the General Court declared: “Our allegiance binds us not to the laws of England any longer than while we live in England.”. Northern colonies, with the exception of Rhode Island, whose code was of 1647, adhered to the English Common law. Massachusetts, in defiance of Parliament, declared herself an Independent commonwealth. [[[CORPORATION]]]
 1660-75 New England Under the Restoration. Charles II Proclaimed the Restoration imperiled the position of the New England colonies.
 1661-63 The Restoration threatened the independent existence of Connecticut (which had no charter) and Rhode Island, whose charter (1644) now had no legality. John Winthrop, jr., obtained a Royal Charter for Connecticut (1662) whose boundaries were described.

 Chapter 4
Settlement of the Middle Colonies
 New Netherlands [[[New York QUOTE:]]]
 1610-18 Independent voyages. Following the voyage of Henry Hudson for the Dutch East India Company, several exploring and trading voyages under Dutch auspices were made to that area. The 13 ship owners engaged in trade with the new world, organized the New Netherland Co. (1614)
 June 3, 1621 Founding of Dutch West India Co. Under the leadership of William Usselinx, a prominent merchant, The Dutch West India Co. was chartered by the States General, which participated in its financing. The Charter conferred a trading monopoly and the right to colonize it in the new world and along the west coast of Africa.
 1624 First permanent settlement. 30 families sailed from Amsterdam. On arrival in New York Bay, a small group was left at a fort on Nut (Governors) Island, several families sent to the Delaware where they established Ft. Nassau (now Gloucester, N.J.) It is conjectured, but not established, that some members of this third group settled on Manhattan Island and that mother Walloons crossed the East River to Long Island.
 1629 To promote farm settlement with a view to making the colony self-sufficient, as well as a supply base for the expanding merchant marine of the COMPANY, both in Brazil and the West Indies, the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions [was drafted], under which the Company was empowered to grant to those transporting 50 settlers, estates fronting 16 miles along navigable rivers and extending inland as far as settlement would permit.
 1638-40 The New Sweden, or New South Co., was organized as successor to a series of trading companies. [[[THIS IS THE PRESENT STATE OF DELAWARE; AND AGAIN, ALL SETTLERS WHERE UNDER CORPORATION CONTROL AS MEMBERS OF THE “COLONY”, JUST LIKE ALL AMERICANS ARE TODAY.]]]
 1647-63 The Dutch members of the New Sweden Co. were bought out and the company reorganized with an increase of capital and an extension of control by the Swedish crown. [[[crown IS THE EXCHEQUER (BANK), NOT THE KING.]]]

 1661-64 The English regarded the Dutch settlement as blocking westward expansion and interfering with the enforcement of the Navigation Acts through clandestine trade in tobacco. “The Company of Royal Adventures to Africa”, with a monopoly of the African slave trade (reincorporated as the Royal African Co., 1663), lost its monopoly (1698). Charles II granted his brother, James, Duke of York, all of Maine, all islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, and all land from the western boundary of Connecticut to the eastern shore of Delaware Bay, with power to govern, subject to the reservation that judicial appeals might be taken to the crown.
 1664-1668 Nicolls renamed New Amsterdam, New York, in honor of the Duke of York, but permitted the Dutch municipal officers to continue to function and even to name their own successors.
 New Jersey
 1664-1665 The Duke of York granted to John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the region between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. Technically, no governmental rights were conveyed, but the proprietors proceeded to issue their Concessions and Agreements, modeled on the Carolina Concessions, granting freedom of conscience, land on generous terms subject to quitrents and the right of freeholders to send deputies to a general assembly.
 1674-87 Lord Berkeley sold his proprietary rights for 1000 pounds to John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, fellow Quakers. The province was divided (1676) between East and West Jersey by the Quintipartite Deed between Carteret, Byllinger and William Penn.
 1701-38 In 1701 the Board of Trade [[[BRITISH]]] recommended that the crown [[[BANK OF ENGLAND, NOT THE KING]]] resume control of the private colonies. In 1702, the proprietors surrendered governmental authority to the crown [[[AGAIN, BANK OF ENGLAND, NOT THE KING]]].
 THE COLONIES AND THE EMPIRE 1624-1775
 May 16,1624 Revocation of Virginia Co. Charter, making Virginia a Royal colony.
1643-59 Parliamentary Commission for Plantations [[[THIS MEANS ALL COLONIES CORPORATE, FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA, WERE REVOKED BY THE KING AND THE KING, WORKING FOR THE VATICAN, MIND YOU, VIA TREATY OF APRIL 14, 1214, NOW IS IN CONTROL OF ALL THE CORPORATE COLONIES.]]]

 1649 With the plantations virtually inactive, all their functions were assumed by the Council of State, which set up a standing committee to handle trade. The King, in council, appointed a “Committee for Trade and Plantations of the Privy Council”. [[[IF ONE READS WHAT WAS FOUND IN NORTH CAROLINA IN 1996 AT: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov046.htm, YOU, TOO, WILL SEE THE SAME OLD COUNCIL OF STATE OPERATION. IN FACT, IF YOU GO TO YOUR SECRETARY OF STATE, YOU CAN GET THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, PROVING THE VATICAN CONTROLS ALL CORPORATE STATES AND UNITED STATES THE SAME WAY. YOU WILL NOT FIND MENTION OF THE VATICAN AT ALL IN ANY HISTORY BOOKS IN THS COUNTRY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON IT DOES NOT WANT IT KNOWN IT IS PULLING THE STRINGS TO ACHIEVE IT'S GOAL OF WORLD DOMINATION. IT OPERATES THRU COUNTRIES AND CORPORATIONS AS SHOWN IN ITS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE I PUT IN THE MYTH AND REALITY BOOK.]]]
 1696-1782 The Board of Trade, commissioned by William III, comprised 15 members (7 high officials; including Privy Councilors, 8 paid members; including a First Lord of Trade, president of the Board), was empowered to supervise (1) trade and the fisheries, (2) care of the poor, (3) plantation affairs, (4) recommend appointments of colonial officials, (5) review colonial legislation and report[s] to the Privy Council.
 1673-76 The Treasury Board’s colonial functions were greatly expanded as a result of the Navigation Laws (particularly the act of 1673).
 1697 Establishment of Vice Admiralty Courts. Under the Navigation Act of 1696, the Privy Council directed the Board of Trade to establish vice-admiralty courts in the colonies, acting under the governors of New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and designated judges and other officers of such courts. [[[WE HAVE THE SAME COURT SYSTEM NOW AS THEN, DESPITE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY. IT'S ALL IN THE 1789 FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, SECTION 34 AND IN MANY LEGAL BOOKS, SUCH AS PROFESSOR BENEDICT'S ADMIRALTY LAW, PUBLISHED BY MATTHEW P BENDER , 7 TH EDITION. IT IS ALSO WRITTEN BY CHARLES WARREN IN HIS TREATISE, THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BAR, PRINTED 1966, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS # 66-24357.]]]
[[[THERE WERE MANY WARS WITHIN THE COLONIES THAT WOULD TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE, BUT THEY ARE JUST QUOTED BELOW BY NAMES.]]]
 1632-70 New France to King Williams War
 1689 King William’s War (War of the League of Augsburg)
 1702 Queen Anne’s War
 1739-42 War of Jenkins’ Ear
 1740-48 King George’s War

 1754 The French and Indian War (Seven Years War)
 ERA OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
 1784 state constitutions. During the revolution, 11 of the 13 states drew up new constitutions. (R.I. and Conn. continued to use the colonial charters of 1662 and 1663, merely deleting all references to the British Crown.) [[[CROWN; MEANING THE KING, AS IT WAS CAPITALIZED. OTHER REFERENCES OF CROWN, NOT CAPITALIZED, MEANS THE BANKERS (EXCHEQUER). THIS IS WHAT IS CRITICAL IN ANY WRITING, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY BEING SAID.]]]
 These new constitutions were the work of revolutionary congresses or conventions. Constitutions where adopted by N.H,. N.J., Pa., Del., Md., Va., N.C. and S.C. in 1776; by N.Y. and Ga. in 1977. [[[PLEASE NOTE: AGAIN GRAMMAR COMES INTO PLAY, IN THAT CONGRESS, NOT CAPITALIZED ABOVE, DOES NOT MEAN THE US CONGRESS, BUT JUST A BUNCH OF MEN (CONGRESS) OR CONVENTION OF MEN, GOT TOGETHER, UNKNOWN TO THE COLONIES AND DRAFTED A CONSTITUTION, THEN THE STATES, JUST LIKE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS DID, ADOPTED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT THEIRS. THE WORD adopt IS FOUND TO BE SOMETHING NOT YOURS, BUT THAT YOU ADOPTED IT, AS IF IT WAS YOURS. THAT IS THE MYTHS ALL AMERICANS FELL FOR, BELIEVING THEY (THE COMMON MAN) WROTE ALL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING. HERE IS WHAT THE AMERICAN NEVER WILL GRASP, THAT IS IN THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN HISTORY by Richard B.Morris.]]] Quoting again the book:
 1789 First Presidential Election
 First Congress, under the Constitution, met in New York without a quorum (8 Senators and 13 representatives). House of Representatives organized with 30 of its 59 members present.
 Executive Departments. The first executive department created under the new government was that of Foreign Affairs. Established 27 July, it was officially re designated (15 Sept) Department of State.

 1791 First Bank of the U.S. (1790) Hamilton submitted to the house his report on a national bank. Washington requested members of his cabinet [[[THIS CABINET IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE COUNCIL OF STATE UNDER THE KING'S CORPORATION LAW]]] to submit written opinions on the constitutionality of the measure. Jefferson’s opinion (15 Feb.), maintaining that the bill was unconstitutional, advanced the doctrine commonly known as “strict constructionist”. Jefferson took as his main ground the 10th Amendment (not yet adopted). The incorporation of the bank, he argued, was not among the powers specifically delegated to Congress. Hamilton’s opinion (23 Feb.), elaborated the powers of “implied powers” (the so called “loose constructionist” view of the Constitution). He contended that the proposed bank was related to the Congressional power to collect taxes and regulate trade. [[[THIS IS AS LAME AN EXCUSE, AS ANY, WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. FOR, IF IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO SIMPLY COLLECT TAXES, WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH THE ACT OF TAX COLLECTION? YOU HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY TO STORE ALL THE TAXES. AND WHAT ABOUT TRADE? WHAT ON EARTH DOES A BANK HAVE TO DO WITH TRADE? THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN THAT LITTLE CHARADE. MUCH MORE. YOU CAN READ IT IN THIS ARTICLE ON ATGPRESS.COM: HTTP://WWW.ATGPRESS.COM/INFORM/WEP002.HTM.]]]
 3 mar., 1791 Hamilton’s 2nd report recommended an excise tax on manufacture of distilled spirits. [[[EVERY THING WE HAVE TO DAY WAS THE CAUSE OF HAMILTON, WHO WAS IN THE EXECUTIVE, WHICH WAS FOREIGN AFFAIRS ONLY AS YOU HAVE READ. HE WAS BRINGING IN ALL FOREIGN CONCERNS TO RULE THIS COUNTRY AND CAUSED A FEUD BETWEEN HAMILTON AND JEFFERSON AND ENDED IN A DUEL WHEN AARON BURR KILLED HAMILTON, BUT THE DAMAGE WAS ALREADY DONE. TO SEE WHY HAMILTON DID WHAT HE DID, READ THIS:
HTTP://WWW.ATGPRESS.COM/INFORM/BA038.HTM]]]

 End of quoting the Encyclopedia of American history.
  http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/informer/historynot.pdf
***

Richard B Morris author of Encyclopedia of American History
 There are much, much more in this book, so, I cut it short. The idea was to show present day Americans, all that went on in this country; that the men and women that came here to settle plantations, were hobbled with corporateness and every city, town and village was nothing but a traders corporation. Then, when the 1776 war started, the corporations of colonies were all a confederation that broke away from the British Rule, but were still owned by that treaty of April 1214, when the King signed his entire empire you just read about, over to the Vatican. So the 1776 war did nothing to free the colonies, or Americans, as they were pledged to the Vatican in April of 1214. The King was nothing but a front man for the corporation of the Vatican and allowed to operate free as he wanted. Just as happened in 1664 to 1668 above in the book. Who actually owns what John Cabot found in the beginning of this book article?

 The Book was a school text book and The Consultant Editors were the who’s Who of History Professors and then was edited by Richard B. Morris, Professor of History of Columbia University. This book cannot be found anywhere, because the Publishers were bought out by the Black Pope’s operatives in this country, so it was eliminated. So, in the long run, the Americans are still controlled by the Vatican. And the crowns you read about in the book, were not the Kings unless specifically named; they were the Bankers (Exchequers) of Europe that controlled all, as they do in America. In a point of fact, all the owners of the federal Reserve are the Exchequers and are the foreign controlled elite of the Vatican. The same ones, not the same persons that were the First Bank of the United States. Maybe you missed it, but if you reread the article, where this is a country named America not the United States. To most Americans, they believe the country is United States. Then why, of all reason, are you called an American and not a United Statesman or something leaving America out? Think a little. If you know the definition of the word “OF” you will know just what the phrase “The United States OF America” is saying.
 When the corporate colonies became States, they retained their corporate character. But, of course, the men and women at that time was kept in the dark; that they were owned by the Vatican and no longer were British subjects and the Vatican proceeded to take over the States, which all were his to begin with, and created the Corporation of the United States. My book, “The Myth and The Reality”, tells how the Vatican did this recapturing of his possessions and why we never won the war against The British. We fought the front man for the owner, that’s all. We won the battle and not the entire war. That is a religious [spiritual] war still ongoing between the Lord and Satan. The Vatican’s organizational Structure, I included in my book, shows Lucifer as top boss of the Vatican’s both Black and white Popes. They, alone, created the Religion of ISLAM for a Distinct purpose. That is now coming to fruition after all these centauries. The Vatican looks 200 to 500 years in the future. Do you look that far in even 1/10th that time into the future, so your offspring’s offspring will have it better?
 What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies? [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]
 ANSWER:
 1067 – Virginia – Charter; by King, to the Virginia Company of London.
 1620 – Massachusetts – Charter; granted by the King, to the Puritans.
 1623 – New Hampshire – King; appointed Council of New England for settlement.
 1624 – New York – Charter; by King, to Duke of York.
 1622 – Connecticut – Charter; by King, to John Winthrop.
 1634 – Maryland – Charter; by King, to Lord Baltimore.
 1636 – Rhode Island – King granted; “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”.
 1638 – Delaware – Charter; by King, to Duke of York.
 1643 – Pennsylvania – Grant; by King, to William Penn.
 1653 – North Carolina – Grant; by King, to Sir Robert Heath.
 1660 – New Jersey – Grant; by King, to Duke of York.
 1670 – South Carolina – Grant; by King, to Eight “Lords Proprietors”.
 1733 – Georgia – Grant; by King, to a Corporation entitled: “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America.
 END QUOTE
 And who sits in the back ground like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind a front, pulling the chains even tighter and calling himself a Vicar of Christ, when his own structure shows Lucifer at the top of the heap, pulling your chains, also, as a member of his private corporation? That’s why no one is a follower of the Lord any more; they follow the dictates of Lucifer’s Minions.

 As the Lord said, if you believe in scriptures altered by the Vatican so many times and I emphasize [the] part of it that no one quotes at all; “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6. If that be the case, then one cannot sit on a fence. I generally don’t quote scriptures, but for those that do, this ought to hit home for all that claim Corporate State of US citizenship. And claim to be a Christian.
 Hosea 8:1 & 4… “they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my Law (the Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus).” Hosea 8:1b (with Romans 8:2 in parentheses added); and, “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:…” Hosea 8:4a. “And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4.
 “Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, ‘We ought rather to obey God than men.’” Acts, 5:29.
 And even these Courts Recognize; even they are not above The Lords law that I have quoted many a time falling on deaf ears.
 Now, all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.
 Many have ignored truth on atgpress, when given, to their standing with the Lord. That’s all self-evident. Those that want to believe in Myths rather than Truth; well, tell it to the Lord, if you ever meet him.

Related articles
The Myth of the Morally Superior Yankee by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
Remembering John Belushi. Read His Bio (commuteresources101.wordpress.com)
Cabot Oil & Gas Provides Operations Update, Reports Success in Marcellus, Marmaton and Eagle Ford (sacbee.com)
How Henry VII branded the Tudors (guardian.co.uk)
Slavery by Consent -The UNITED STATES CORPORATION (usapartisan.com)
Popping Out to Say Hello… (tudortutor.com)
The “I”s Have It (tudortutor.com)
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Announces First Quarter Profits, Record Quarterly Production Volumes (sacbee.com)
Cabot Oil & Gas Provides Operations Update, Reports Success in Marcellus, Marmaton and Eagle Ford (prnewswire.com)
Review: The Winter King by Thomas Penn (sparrowreads.com)
Do Your Children Attend Public School? (lewrockwell.com)
The Horrors of State-Run Schools and Schooling (lewrockwell.com)
One-world governance policies begin in New Rochelle, NY (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
Prison Planet.com ” Experts Agree: War On Terror Is A Racket, CIA And Wall Street Are Financed By Global Drug Trade (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
California University Student Hacks Online Election (bradblog.com)
American Society, The Next 4 Years (economicoutlaw.wordpress.com)
Is It Warm in Here? (thestreetwhereyoulive.wordpress.com)
What Must Be Silenced (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
H.l. Mencken Was Right (theburningplatform.com)
Pathways to the Common Core + a Giveaway (twowritingteachers.wordpress.com)
The State: It’s Just an Act! (musicians4freedom.com)
The Self-Contradictory US Constitution (lewrockwell.com)
Slavery by Consent -The UNITED STATES CORPORATION (federaljack.com)
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS – the issue of unalienable rights – what they are – where they come from – why they’re so important. (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
Guest Post: Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots? (zerohedge.com)
Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots? (activistpost.com)
FreedomProject Education: In the Tradition of the Founders (postamericana.wordpress.com)
Anonymous Judge Blows the Whistle: America is nothing more than a large Plantation and ‘We the People’ are the Slaves (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
Secrets of the Shadow Makers: Unidentified Flying Objects and the real Men in Black (overmanwarrior.wordpress.com)
[Blogger] Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: In Defense of the LGBT community by Jose Mario De Vega (hronlineph.com)
School vouchers and the religious subversion of church-state separation | Katherine Stewart (guardian.co.uk)
The North American War Theater: Objectives, Tactics, And Agents of Oppression (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
| Trials without crimes or evidence! (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
Hump Day Link-Around (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
The “Imperfect” Document (musicians4freedom.com)
The Power of Eminent Domain: A History of Abuse (uculr.com)
Federal Reserve Banking System (blacklistednews.com)
Guest Post: We’re All Nixonians Now (zerohedge.com)
Gingrich In Video Which Claims Constitution Based On Old Testament (blogs.alternet.org)
Constitutional Quizzery (whitelocust.wordpress.com)
Political Language, Brought to You by Corporate America (woodgatesview.com)
Bruce Wilson: Gingrich In Video Which Claims the Constitution Is Based On the Old Testament (huffingtonpost.com)
America’s Twilight: Big Government Erosion of Privacy, Individual Rights, and Free Market (sfcmac.wordpress.com)
This Bribery Law Has Actually Been Scaring Corporate America For The Past Decade (businessinsider.com)
http://src-fla.us/index.php/understanding-the-fraud/14-sample-data-articles/107-judge-drake-5
Exchequer:Hema Ramakrishnan’s
Index-digest Federal Reserve Bulletin Volumes
 The Informer Arthur Cristian
Exchequer (British government department)

http://lisaleaks.com/2013/07/26/forgotten-history-concealed-facts/






Monday, February 2, 2015

Indian-Hating in "The Wizard of Oz"


Indian-Hating in "The Wizard of Oz"
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Weekend Edition June 26-28, 2004
L. Frank Baum: Racist
Indian-Hating in "The Wizard of Oz"
by THOMAS ST. JOHN
    The Wizard of Oz in 1899 ruling his empire from behind his Barrier of Invisibility evokes the 1869 Imperial Wizard of the Invisible Empire of the South, the Ku Klux Klan. Baum's figure King Crow and his by-play with the Scarecrow relate to the Jim Crow lynch law at the turn of the century.
    Lyman Frank Baum's overwhelmingly popular fantasy, and the more violent aspects of United States foreign policy, were welded together in the American mind for the next century and beyond.
Lyman Frank Baum (1856-1919) advocated the extermination of the American Indian in his 1899 fantasy "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". Baum was an Irish nationalist newspaper editor, a former resident of Aberdeen in the old Dakota Indian territory. His sympathies with the village pioneers caused him to invent the Oz fantasy to justify extermination. All of Baum's "innocent" symbols clearly represent easily recognizable frontier landmarks, political realities, and peoples. These symbols were presented to frontier children, to prepare them for their racially violent future.
The Yellow Brick Road represents the yellow brick gold at the end of the Bozeman Road to the Montana gold fields. Chief Red Cloud had forced the razing of several posts, including Fort Phil Kearney, and had forced the signing of the Fort Laramie Treaty. When George Armstrong Custer cut "the Thieves' Road" during his 1874 gold expedition invasion of the sacred Black Hills, he violated this treaty, and turned U.S. foreign policy toward the Little Big Horn and the Wounded Knee massacre.
The Winged Monkeys are the Irish Baum's satire on the old Northwest Mounted Police, who were modelled on the Irish Constabulary. The scarlet tunic of the Mounties, and the distinctive "pillbox" forage cap with the narrow visor and strap are seen clearly in the color plate in the 1900 first edition of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". Villagers across the Dakota territory heartily despised these British police, especially after 1877, when Sitting Bull retreated across the border and into their protection after killing Custer.
The Shifting Sands, the Deadly Desert, the Great Sandy Waste, and the Impassable Desert are Frank Baum's reference to that area of the froniter known always as "the great American desert", west and south of the Great Lakes. Baum creates these fictional, barren areas as protective buffers for his Oz utopia, against hostile, foreign people. This "buffer state" practice had been part of U.S. foreign policy against the Indians, since the earliest colonial days.
The Emerald City of Oz recreates the Irish nationalist's vision of the Emerald Isle, the sacred land, Ireland, set in this American desert like the sacred Paha Sapa of the Lakota people, these mineral-rich Black Hills floored by coal. Irish settlements in the territories, in Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota--at Brule City, Limerick, at Lalla Rookh, and at O'Neill two hundred miles south of Aberdeen--founded invasions of the Black Hills.
The Yellow Winkies, slaves, are Frank Baum's symbol for the sizable Chinese population in the old West, emigrated for the Union-Pacific railroad, creatures with the slant or winking eyes.
The Deadly Poppy Field is the innocent child's first sight of opium, that anodyne of choice for pain in the nineteenth century, sold in patent medicines, in the Wizard Oil, at the travelling Indian medicine shows. Baum's deadly poppies are the poison opium, causing sleep and the fatal dream.
The Wicked Witch of the West is illustrated in the 1900 first edition as a pickaninny, with beribboned, braided pigtails extended comically. Baum repeats the word "brown" in describing her. But this symbol's real historic depth lies in the earlier Puritans' confounding of European witches with the equally heathen American Indians.
The orphan Dorothy's violent removal from Kansas civilization, her search for secret and magical cures for her friends, her capture, enslavement to an evil figure--and the killing of this figure that is forced on her--all these themes Baum takes from the already two hundred year old tradition of the Indian captivity narrative which stoked the fires of Indian-hating and its hope of "redemption through violence".
In the year immediately following the huge success of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum wrote a fantasy entitled The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. It is apparent that his frontier experiences were still on his mind. The book was illustrated by Mary Cowles Clark--tomahawks, spears, the hide- covered teepees, and the faces of Indian men, women, and children, and papooses fill the pages and the margins. Baum describes the "rude tent of skins on a broad plain".
Two crucial chapters are titled "The Wickedness of the Awgwas" and "The Great Battle Between Good and Evil". The Awgwas represent native Americans: "that terrible race of creatures" and "the wicked tribe". Baum condemns the Awgwas:
"You are a transient race, passing from life into nothingness. We, who live forever, pity but despise you. On earth you are scorned by all, and in Heaven you have no place! Even the mortals, after their earth life, enter another existence for all time, and so are your superiors.".
Predictably enough, a few pages later, "all that remained of the wicked Awgwas was a great number of earthen hillocks dotting the plain." Baum is recalling newspaper photos of the burial field at Wounded Knee.
The Wizard of Oz in 1899 ruling his empire from behind his Barrier of Invisibility evokes the 1869 Imperial Wizard of the Invisible Empire of the South, the Ku Klux Klan. Baum's figure King Crow and his by-play with the Scarecrow relate to the Jim Crow lynch law at the turn of the century.
Lyman Frank Baum's overwhelmingly popular fantasy, and the more violent aspects of United States foreign policy, were welded togehter in the American mind for the next century and beyond.
Frank Baum's widow, at the Hollywood premiere of "The Wizard of Oz" in 1939, complained that the story had been sentimentalized. Indeed, the old and crudely direct political symbols had been removed, and the sweetness poured in--the new U.S. foreign policy demanded more subtle justifications.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.".
THOMAS ST. JOHN graduated from Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, and lived in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the author of "Forgotten Dreams: Ritual in American Popular Art" (New York: The Vantage Press, 1987), a collection of essays on Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables, Reverend Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", the black history driving the films "Casablanca" and the cartoon "The Three Little Pigs", and the Dakota Indian territory symbols in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". The short book "Nathaniel Hawthorne: Studies in the House of the Seven Gables" is now almost complete and online. He can be reached at: show contact info
  
Mark Twain, Indian Hater

Indian Comics Irregular #59
Many people think "Huckleberry Finn" is America's greatest novel and
Mark Twain America's greatest writer. Perhaps, but as I've argued
before, Twain made the slave Jim a stereotype--a minstrel-show
darky--while crafting his anti-racist message. In that respect,
"Huck Finn" seems little different from modern entertainment
featuring black hoodlums, Latino servants, or Indian mascots.
Twain's supporters defend the stereotypes in "Huck Finn" with
tortured arguments--along the lines of "blacks really did speak that
poorly" or "blacks really were that ignorant." But Twain's racial
problems go far beyond Jim's portrayal in "Huck." As I recently
learned, he also attacked Indians mercilessly in his writings.
A representative example comes from "The Noble Red Man" (1870):
He is ignoble--base and treacherous, and hateful in every way.
Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue.
The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming
selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest
development.
Is it possible someone who wrote these words--who called Indians "the
scum of the earth!"--WASN'T a blatant racist? Judge for yourself.
The evidence is at http://www.bluecorncomics.com/twain.htm.
The "Good Indian"
If portrayals like Twain's "Noble Red Man" and his murderous Injun
Joe are the worst America has to offer, are the legends of
Pocahontas, Squanto, and Sacagawea the best? Do these brave, noble,
self-sacrificing Indians represent all that's good and worthy about
Native cultures?
In a word, no. As James W. Loewen explains in his book "Lies Across
America":
To soften invasion narratives, conquerors often highlighted the
stories of natives who helped them. Americans might call these
"Tonto figures" after the Lone Ranger's famous sidekick--the
archetypal "good Indian," always ready to help track down the "bad
Indians" and outlaws who menaced whites on the frontier.
Our national culture particularly heroifies the first two "good
Indians," Pocahontas in Virginia and Squanto in Massachusetts, who
became famous foundation figures in our origin myths.
Yes, and the same applies to our myth-making apparatus today.
Whether it's in movies, on TV shows, or in comic books, we still tend
to depict only what's "safe" in our multicultural society. For more
on the subject, go to http://www.bluecorncomics.com/tonto.htm.
A Harmless Stereotype?
People often say "It's just a story" when excusing lies in historical
fiction. My favorite anecdote on that point comes from an LA Times
column written after Disney's "Pocahontas":
When a portrait of a crinkly eyed Smith was shown on "Biography,"
our daughter Sarah, age 7, said, "Oh, my God! He's got a beard!
He's almost bald!"
When a portrait of the Indian princess was shown, Sarah took one
look at the somewhat plump, round-faced child and declared: "That
is not Pocahontas."
During one commercial break, however, she exclaimed, "There they
are," pointing triumphantly to the screen, where the voluptuous
Indian maiden and surfer John were indeed frolicking. It was an
ad for the animated movie.
Native Hot Spot
Annmarie Sauer sent me pictures from her fact-finding mission to Big
Mountain, one of the most controversial places in Indian Country.
I've posted them online at http://www.bluecorncomics.com/gallery.htm.
Take a look to see what's going on.
Rob Schmidt
Blue Corn Comics

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Vernon Bellecourt- Liar




Honest Injun?
The incidence of fake Indians is almost epidemic.

By John J. Miller
EDITOR'S NOTE: "Did a struggling white writer of gay erotica become one of multicultural literature's most celebrated memoirists — by passing himself off as Native American?" So asks L.A. Weekly in its current issue, which features a story by Matthew Fleischer on an author who calls himself Nasdijj and claims to be a Navajo.
Fake memoirs have made news lately, with the revelations surrounding James Frey, the author of the best-selling book A Million Little Pieces. Nasdijj, for his part, may simply be the latest in a long line of Indian hoaxers, whose ranks also include the radical professor Ward Churchill and Forrest Carter, the author of The Education of Little Tree.
Last year, NR's John J. Miller reported on the phenomenon of Indian hoaxers, in the March 28, 2005 issue.

In his book The Education of Little Tree, Forrest Carter tells the tender tale of becoming an orphan and growing up in the Appalachian boondocks under the careful watch of his Cherokee grandparents. The book is full of sweet lessons about the importance of family and the need to live in harmony with nature. There's quite a backstory to it as well. First published in 1976, The Education of Little Tree received warm reviews and garnered a cult following, but wasn't a commercial hit. Ten years later, the University of New Mexico Press bought the rights to it for just $500.
That purchase ranks as one of the publishing industry's most lucrative coups: The Education of Little Tree has since sold hundreds of thousands of copies. "The values as well as the prose touched many who didn't usually read," wrote Prof. Rennard Strickland in a foreword to the original paperback edition. "Students of Native American life discovered the book to be as accurate as it was mystical and romantic." On June 23, 1991, the book debuted on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback nonfiction. It remained there throughout the summer and well into the fall, eventually rising to the top position. Then, on November 10, it vanished — and reappeared on the bestseller list for paperback fiction.
That's because it had been exposed as a fraud. Forrest Carter was really Asa Carter, a white supremacist who had written speeches for Alabama governor George Wallace in the 1960s. Wallace's viciously memorable line — "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!" — probably came from Carter's pen. Carter, who died in 1979, was a forerunner to such fabulists as Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. He was no Indian and his famous book was no memoir.
Carter was one of the more spectacular examples of a white person trying to come off as an Indian. There is a long history of this make-believe behavior, going back at least as far as the Boston Tea Party. The 19th and 20th centuries saw the emergence of fraternal orders and other organizations that aped Indian identities. Yet nobody seriously believed the Campfire Girls were the authentic daughters of Sitting Bull. That's not the case with some of the most recent forms of real Indian bull, as Carter and The Education of Little Tree demonstrate. "It's an epidemic," complains Vernon Bellecourt of the American Indian Movement. "These people are culture vultures, and their motive is to make money."
Between 1960 and 2000, the number of Americans claiming Indian ancestry on their census forms jumped by a factor of six. Neither birthrates nor counting methodologies can account for this explosive growth. Instead, the phenomenon arises in large part from the increasingly idealistic place Indians occupy in the popular imagination. Much of it is based on harmless sentiment mixed into a hash of unverifiable family legends and wishful thinking among folks who hang dreamcatchers from their rearview mirrors. But for a distinct subset, it's all about personal profit. They're professional imposters who have built entire careers by putting the sham into shaman.
The most famous of these pretenders is probably Iron Eyes Cody, the actor who starred in those Keep America Beautiful television ads during the 1970s. It turns out that the tear — actually glycerin — trickling down his sad face wasn't his only deception. Iron Eyes Cody was born Espera DeCorti, the son of Italian immigrants. His black hair and bronze skin apparently came from his mother's Sicilian side. Although many Indians who met him harbored doubts about his true identity, Iron Eyes turned his trickery into a successful career in Hollywood. He performed as an Indian in more than a hundred films, all the while insisting that his father was Cherokee and his mother Cree. His published autobiography is a pack of lies. The full truth came out only after his death in 1999.
The latest phony Indian to be unmasked is Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who recently ruffled feathers for calling the victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" whose massacre was a "penalty befitting their participation in" global capitalism. Churchill is an all-too-predictable product of the modern academy. He is a tenured "ethnic studies" specialist, but he does not hold a doctorate in anything, and his scholarship, if it can be called that, is riddled with errors and left-wing posturing. The man is a buffoon.
Churchill can get away with so few credentials and such a heap of sloppiness because he claims to speak on behalf of a disenfranchised minority. The basis for this assertion rests on Churchill's ancestry, which he has variously described as three-sixteenths Cherokee and one-sixteenth Cree. Yet he has never provided any documentary evidence on his background, which Indians commonly do to prove their status within a tribe. He did gain membership to the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in 1994, but it was an associate membership that was temporarily available to people who aren't in fact Indian. (Bill Clinton, who has said that his grandmother's grandmother was a Cherokee, is also an honorary member of the Keetoowah.)
"You can spot these phony baloneys across the continent," says Suzan Shown Harjo, a Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee who first met Churchill about 15 years ago. "Right away, I could tell he was a faker because he refused to talk about his family."
Churchill served in Vietnam — he has boasted about going on dangerous jungle missions, but Army records indicate that he mostly drove trucks — and at the time he listed himself as "Caucasian." He switched this to "American Indian" in 1978, when he filled out an affirmative-action form as part of his application to become a lecturer in Native American studies at Colorado. He has maintained this identity ever since, though the only corroboration he can offer — apart from his obvious fondness for the long-hair-and-dark-sunglasses look of a reservation activist — is his own word.
A less extravagant but more common fraud than masquerading as an "ethnic studies" expert involves the marketing of non-Indian arts and crafts as "Indian-made." The problem became so pervasive that Congress toughened truth-in-advertising laws against it in 1990. Businesses caught violating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act face penalties up to $1 million. That's peanuts to the gambling industry, of course, and the fast growth of tribal casinos has prompted many Americans to embark on genealogical hunting expeditions. The enormous Foxwoods casino in Connecticut, for example, was built by a small band of people who didn't normally refer to themselves as Pequot Indians until they realized a tribal identity was their ticket to gambling riches.
For others, Indian ancestry is a gateway to government set-aside programs. A public-works contractor in California managed to qualify as a disadvantaged businessman because a great-great-grandparent's contribution to the family gene pool had made him 1/64th Indian.
One of the most common forms of exploitation involves white writers who don't pretend to be Indians themselves but who claim special insights into Indian spirituality. In 1968, Carlos Castaneda, a UCLA graduate student in anthropology, published The Teachings of Don Juan, which was allegedly based on his clandestine visits with a reclusive Yaqui sorcerer in the Sonoran desert. The book purports to describe the mystical secrets of an ancient Indian faith, which happened to involve using a lot of hallucinogenic drugs. Castaneda's ramblings were in tune with the turn-on, drop-out times. His book became an international bestseller. Castaneda spent the next three decades refusing interviews and issuing sequels based on his supposed encounters with a man nobody else ever met. He died in 1998.
Another bestselling author, Lynn Andrews, has been dubbed "the female Carlos Castaneda," and it wasn't meant as an insult. Her first book, Medicine Woman, described a journey into the far reaches of Manitoba, where she met a pair of female sages. Then she returned home to Beverly Hills and has spent the rest of her life peddling New Age gobbledygook in subsequent books, through online courses, and at Hawaiian retreats. She is just a small part of a cottage industry that offers sweat-lodge "purification ceremonies" and tour-guided "rites of passage" in the wilderness. In 1993, the National Congress of American Indians became so frustrated by all these perversions of authentic religious traditions that it issued a "declaration of war" against "non-Indian 'wanna-bes,' hucksters, cultists, commercial profiteers, and self-styled New Age shamans."
Nobody likes a con artist, and it isn't difficult to find harsh critics of white people who "play Indian" for personal gain. One of their most scathing detractors has labeled Castaneda "the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man," called Andrews "an air-head 'feminist' yuppie," and branded Ruth Beebe Hill's Hanta Yo — yet another book of doubtful legitimacy — a "ludicrous performance." Taken together, these charlatans have "made a significant recent contribution (for profit) to the misrepresentation and appropriation of indigenous spirituality." What's more, they've "been tendered some measure of credibility by the 'certified scholars' of American universities."
But that's not all. By impersonating Indians and making them look like fools, these imposters are guilty of "cultural genocide."
That would seem to make them little Eichmanns, too. The author of these words? Ward Churchill.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Roosting Chickens Americas Guilt

New Arrivals
Products
Texts
Hot Stuff
Links
The Others



"Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens 

By Ward Churchill
When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

 On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.
The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.
 If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.
All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.
 The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand niggers" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad.
  There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

 If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

 One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

 The Politics of a Perpetrator Population

  As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns.. There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" and "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids," no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus. In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.
Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."
Property before people, it seems – or at least the equation of property to people – is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone "pacifists" queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.
Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world – the Mideast, for instance – began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America's purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.
The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption. So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America's free-fire zones.
Tellingly, it was at precisely this point – with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it – that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States.
 

 Meet the "Terrorists"

  Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate "news" media immediately following their successful operation on September 11. They did not, for starters, "initiate" a war with the US, much less commit "the first acts of war of the new millennium."
A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.
That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.
Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."
One might rightly describe their actions as "desperate." Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say "normal" – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy).
That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.
And still less were they/their acts "insane."
Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one – or one's country – holds what amounts to a "divine right" to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US "strategic bombing campaign" against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)
Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of "evil."
Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf's utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere "collateral damage." Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.
Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless "the world is rid of such evil," to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark.
There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of "Arabic-looking individuals" – America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's peoples ample cause to be at war with it – or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.
To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not "terrorist incidents" – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as "escalation").
Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.
 

 About Those Boys (and Girls) in the Bureau

  There's another matter begging for comment at this point. The idea that the FBI's "counterterrorism task forces" can do a thing to prevent what will happen is yet another dimension of America's delusional pathology.. The fact is that, for all its publicly-financed "image-building" exercises, the Bureau has never shown the least aptitude for anything of the sort. Oh, yeah, FBI counterintelligence personnel have proven quite adept at framing anarchists, communists and Black Panthers, sometimes murdering them in their beds or the electric chair. The Bureau's SWAT units have displayed their ability to combat child abuse in Waco by burning babies alive, and its vaunted Crime Lab has been shown to pad its "crime-fighting' statistics by fabricating evidence against many an alleged car thief. But actual "heavy-duty bad guys" of the sort at issue now? This isn't a Bruce Willis/Chuck Norris/Sly Stallone movie, after all.. And J. Edgar Hoover doesn't get to approve either the script or the casting.
The number of spies, saboteurs and bona fide terrorists apprehended, or even detected by the FBI in the course of its long and slimy history could be counted on one's fingers and toes. On occasion, its agents have even turned out to be the spies, and, in many instances, the terrorists as well.
To be fair once again, if the Bureau functions as at best a carnival of clowns where its "domestic security responsibilities" are concerned, this is because – regardless of official hype – it has none. It is now, as it's always been, the national political police force, an instrument created and perfected to ensure that all Americans, not just the consenting mass, are "free" to do exactly as they're told.
The FBI and "cooperating agencies" can be thus relied upon to set about "protecting freedom" by destroying whatever rights and liberties were left to U.S. citizens before September 11 (in fact, they've already received authorization to begin). Sheeplike, the great majority of Americans can also be counted upon to bleat their approval, at least in the short run, believing as they always do that the nasty implications of what they're doing will pertain only to others.
Oh Yeah, and "The Company," Too
A possibly even sicker joke is the notion, suddenly in vogue, that the CIA will be able to pinpoint "terrorist threats," "rooting out their infrastructure" where it exists and/or "terminating" it before it can materialize, if only it's allowed to beef up its "human intelligence gathering capacity" in an unrestrained manner (including full-bore operations inside the US, of course).
Yeah. Right.
Since America has a collective attention-span of about 15 minutes, a little refresher seems in order: "The Company" had something like a quarter-million people serving as "intelligence assets" by feeding it information in Vietnam in 1968, and it couldn't even predict the Tet Offensive. God knows how many spies it was fielding against the USSR at the height of Ronald Reagan's version of the Cold War, and it was still caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As to destroying "terrorist infrastructures," one would do well to remember Operation Phoenix, another product of its open season in Vietnam. In that one, the CIA enlisted elite US units like the Navy Seals and Army Special Forces, as well as those of friendly countries – the south Vietnamese Rangers, for example, and Australian SAS – to run around "neutralizing" folks targeted by The Company's legion of snitches as "guerrillas" (as those now known as "terrorists" were then called).
Sound familiar?
Upwards of 40,000 people – mostly bystanders, as it turns out – were murdered by Phoenix hit teams before the guerrillas, stronger than ever, ran the US and its collaborators out of their country altogether. And these are the guys who are gonna save the day, if unleashed to do their thing in North America?
The net impact of all this "counterterrorism" activity upon the combat teams' ability to do what they came to do, of course, will be nil.
Instead, it's likely to make it easier for them to operate (it's worked that way in places like Northern Ireland). And, since denying Americans the luxury of reaping the benefits of genocide in comfort was self-evidently a key objective of the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it can be stated unequivocally that a more overt display of the police state mentality already pervading this country simply confirms the magnitude of their victory.
 

 On Matters of Proportion and Intent

  As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That's about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%). They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).
In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they've knocked down a half-dozen buildings – albeit some very well-chosen ones – as opposed to the "strategic devastation" visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq's entire economy.
With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.
The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.
Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans). There is, however, no reason to believe that retributive parity is necessarily an item on the agenda of those who planned the WTC/Pentagon operation. If it were, given the virtual certainty that they possessed the capacity to have inflicted far more damage than they did, there would be a lot more American bodies lying about right now.
Hence, it can be concluded that ravings carried by the "news" media since September 11 have contained at least one grain of truth: The peoples of the Mideast "aren't like" Americans, not least because they don't "value life' in the same way. By this, it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life – all lives, not just their own – far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts.
 

 The Makings of a Humanitarian Strategy

  In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11. Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name – indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it – mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.
Now they do.
That was the "medicinal" aspect of the attacks.
To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they're now experiencing first-hand is no different from – or the least bit more excruciating than – that which they've been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.
More bluntly, the hope was – and maybe still is – that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as "stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."
Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing.
Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.
Whether they would remain so would of course be contingent upon follow-up. By that, it may be assumed that American acceptance of onsite inspections by international observers to verify destruction of its weapons of mass destruction (as well as dismantlement of all facilities in which more might be manufactured), Nuremberg-style trials in which a few thousand US military/corporate personnel could be properly adjudicated and punished for their Crimes Against humanity, and payment of reparations to the array of nations/peoples whose assets the US has plundered over the years, would suffice.
Since they've shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. Stranger things have happened.
 

 In the Alternative

  Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case. Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts. Maybe they forgot to factor in the mind-numbing effects of the indoctrination passed off as education in the US. Then, again, it's entirely possible they were aware that a decisive majority of American adults have been reduced by this point to a level much closer to the kind of immediate self-gratification entailed in Pavlovian stimulus/response patterns than anything accessible by appeals to higher logic, and still felt morally obliged to offer the dolts an option to quit while they were ahead. What the hell? It was worth a try.
But it's becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose.
Although there are undoubtedly exceptions, Americans for the most part still don't get it.
Already, they've desecrated the temporary tomb of those killed in the WTC, staging a veritable pep rally atop the mangled remains of those they profess to honor, treating the whole affair as if it were some bizarre breed of contact sport. And, of course, there are the inevitable pom-poms shaped like American flags, the school colors worn as little red-white-and-blue ribbons affixed to labels, sportscasters in the form of "counterterrorism experts" drooling mindless color commentary during the pregame warm-up.
Refusing the realization that the world has suddenly shifted its axis, and that they are therefore no longer "in charge," they have by-and-large reverted instantly to type, working themselves into their usual bloodlust on the now obsolete premise that the bloodletting will "naturally" occur elsewhere and to someone else.
"Patriotism," a wise man once observed, "is the last refuge of scoundrels."
And the braided, he might of added.
Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."
One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion – or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet – but the matter is deadly serious.
They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go.
To where? Afghanistan?
The Sudan?
Iraq, again (or still)?
How about Grenada (that was fun)?
Any of them or all. It doesn't matter.
The desire to pummel the helpless runs rabid as ever.
Only, this time it's different.
The time the helpless aren't, or at least are not so helpless as they were.
This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.
"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."
And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad – or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the "terrorists"' own schedule, and at a place of their choosing – the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here "at home."
Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?
That, too, is their choice to make.
Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.
"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."
As they should.
As they must.
And as they undoubtedly will.
There is justice in such symmetry.

 ADDENDUM

  The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things. For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.
Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.
Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).
And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.
Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?
Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?
Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?
Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?
One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.
The list is too long, too awful to go on.
No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.
The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.

Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of Native American activists. In his lectures and numerous published works, he explores the themes of genocide in the Americas, historical and legal (re)interpretation of conquest and colonization, literary and cinematic criticism, and indigenist alternatives to the status quo. Churchill is a Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies. He is also a past national spokesperson for the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. His books include Agents of Repression, Fantasies of the Master Race, From a Native Son and A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust   

In March 2009 Ward Churchill has been in court, suing the University of Colorado for firing him, a move the university made in 200_ as retaliation for this essay. Reports from the trial here are courtesy of the Ward Churchill Trial Blog maintained by the Ward Churchill Solidarity Network: